Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 Town Of Los Altos Hills July 8, 1998 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: POLICIES AND ORDINANCES REGARDING: 1) CHIMNEY HEIGHT; 2) LA PALOMA CORRIDOR; AND 3) CARPORTS FROM: Curtis S. Williams,Planning Dire RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Discuss the attached ordinance and policy language and provide direction to staff to prepare the necessary ordinances, policies and environmental documentation for public hearings and for City Council consideration. BACKGROUND i The Planning Commission and City Council conducted joint study sessions on October 29, 1997 and February 10, 1998 to discuss a number of issues of concern related to planning review. The Planning Commission has previously reviewed a number of these issues, but has not developed them to a point of recommendations to the Council, due to lack of time and the absence of Commissioners. On June 17, 1998, the City Council directed staff to;prepare policy or ordinance language regarding: 1) chimney height limitations; and 2) development standards and boundaries for the La Paloma corridor. These policies or ordinances would require consideration and recommendation by the Commission prior to action by the Council. On June 23, 1998, the Commission, in reviewing a specific project, expressed concern about a proposed carport which was not included in floor area calculations, and directed staff to develop ordinance language requiring garage parking for each site. DISCUSSION Attached is a matrix comparing many of the Town's development standards to those of other similar Peninsula residential communities, as requested previously by the Commission. The matrix has been updated with the inclusion of some of Palo Alto's hillside zoning standards. Each of the three issues above is discussed separately below. Chimney Height Limitations The Commission has expressed concern on many projects that chimneys are proposed to be large and obtrusive, and has frequently limited the chimney heights to those prescribed as the minimum under the Uniform Building Code, i.e., the top of the chimney at least 2 feet above the roof and at least 10 feet horizontally away from the roof. The Town's Zoning Code addresses chimney heights in Section 10-1.504(c)(1), which states that: � "Chimneys and appurtenances can extend above the twenty-seven (27') foot height limit. However, the maximum height including chimneys and appurtenances shall not exceed thirty-five (35') feet and Planning Commission: Carports, Chimneys, La Paloma • July 8, 1998 page 2 all, points of the building must lie within a thirty-five (35') foot horizontal band based from the lowest visible natural or finished grade." Staff has prepared language (Attachment 1) which would amend this section of the Code to limit chimney heights to "the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code, unless the Site Development Authority determines that there would not be any visual impact from chimneys in excess of this height" (but still not to exceed 35 feet). The amendment is presented in a ctri kethrough/bold format to highlight the changes from the current ordinance. La Paloma Corridor Over the past dozen years,the Commission and Council have reviewed approximately ten new residences within the "La Paloma Corridor", generally meaning the area of the valley at the north end of La Paloma Road. In order to maintain an "open" and low profile appearance in this exposed valley, those residences have been limited to a maximum height of 23 feet and for the most part to a single story, or at least to have a single story appearance from La Paloma and immediate neighbors. Additionally, setbacks along La Paloma Road have been varied from 40-80 feet to avoid the appearance of a "tract" layout. There has not, however, ever been a written policy to that effect, and no determination of the geographical boundary of the corridor. Upon review of a recent project at 13870 La Paloma Road, the City Council directed that the La Paloma Corridor limitations should be embodied in a policy statement for Commission and Council consideration, along with a map of the area to be affected. Staff notes that, within the area of likely concern, there are probably only a handful of lots remaining which have not been developed under the restrictions proposed by,the policy. While the Code is not explicit about compatibility issues, policy B-1 on page 15 of the Town's Design Guidelines states that: "In a neighborhood of predominantly one story dwellings, one story or modified two story structures are encouraged." Policy B-3 on page 16 of the Guidelines states that projects should: "Retain the visual openness between you and your neighbor by varying setbacks on all lots,whether gently sloping or hilly." These policies and the open and low profile character of the La Paloma corridor have been the basis for previous Town restrictions on proposed new residences. Attached is a draft policy (Attachment 2) for the corridor and an attached map outlining the extent of the development limitations. The map generally covers all properties with access from La Paloma Road south of Fremont Road to Todd Lane, and several properties on the south side of Fremont Road, from near Concepcion Road to Fremont Pines Lane. Staff believes that these properties form the visual corridor of this portion of La Paloma Road. The policy statement•would limit new residences and additions to a maximum height limit of 23 feet, measured from existing grade or the pad, whichever is lower, unless the Site Development Authority (Planning Commission or Council) allows fill below the house for flood protection purposes, in which case the height may be measured from the • .Planning Commission: Carports, Chimneys, La Paloma July 8, 1998 page 3 fill elevation. The policy would also generally restrict homes to a single story, but would contain flexibility to allow a minimal second story where no second story walls are exposed and where second story windows are limited to no more than a single small dormer on an elevation. The policy also would require varying setbacks from those on neighboring lots. The policy format is similar to that of other policies reviewed by the Commission and Council, and upon adoption would be incorporated into the Design Guidelines. Staff suggests that, prior to recommendation to the Council, the Commission may wish to invite comment from La Paloma Corridor property',owners, or may at least recommend such a process to the City Council. Carports The Commission has frequently been concerned about the use of carports (or uncovered parking) to comply with the Town's parking regulations, as carports are counted only as development area and not as floor area. As a result, floor area is maximized, although the carport contributes to the size and bulk of the development as well. Occasionally the Commission has seen variance requests to convert carports into garages, exceeding allowable floor area. The reasoning is generally that garages are safer and more attractive than carports. Section 10-1.601 of the Town's Zoning Code requires that each lot provide four (4) off- street parking spaces, and that an additional space be provided for a second dwelling. None of those provisions, however, requires any of the parking to be covered or enclosed. At the June 23rd Commission meeting, Commissioners suggested that it would be appropriate to require three of the required four parking spaces to be in a garage. The proposed ordinance language (Attachment 3) would alter the existing Code provision to impose such a requirement. The amendment is again provided in a stripbold format to highlight the changes from the current ordinance. Ordinance Process The amendments regarding chimney heights and carports would both comprise modifications to the Town's Zoning Code. Revisions to the Zoning Code require notice and public hearing before the Planning Commission and similar notice and hearing before the City Council. The amendments also require environmental (CEQA) review, in this case a Negative Declaration. Thus, if the Commission so directs, staff will have the City Attorney formalize the ordinances and will then prepare the necessary notice and Negative Declaration before returning to the Commission for action. Staff is available for any questions or comments from the Commission or the public. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Ordinance Amendment Re: Chimney Height Limitations 2. Draft Policy Re: La Paloma Road Corridor Development Limitations 3. Draft Ordinance Re: Carports and Garages 4. Matrix of Development Standards of Selected Peninsula Cities , ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT ORDINANCE REGARDING CHIMNEY HEIGHT Chimney Height: Revise Section 10-1.504(c)(1) of Chapter 10-1 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code to read as follows: "Chimneys -and appurtenances can extend above the twenty-seven (27') foot height limit. However, the maximum height including chimneys and appurtenances shall not exceed thirty-five (35') feet and all points of the building must lie within a thirty-five (35') foot horizontal band based from the lowest visible natural or finished grade. Chimneys shall generally be limited to a height not to exceed the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code, unless the Site ;Development Authority determines that a greater height would not be obtrusive and would comply with the 35 foot height limitation." 7/8/98 Draft • • • • • ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT Policy Re: La Paloma Road Corridor Development Limitations Code Sections and Design Guidelines: Section 10-2.701 of the Site Development Ordinance states that the purpose of Code provisions regarding building siting is to: "insure that the site, location, and configuration of structures are unobtrusive when viewed from off-site". Section 10-2.702(b)(1) of the Code indicates that: "Single story buildings and height restrictions may be required on - hilltops, ridgelines, and highly visible lots". Policy B-1 on page 15 of the Town's Design Guidelines encourages one story or modified two story structures in a neighborhood of predominantly one story dwellings. Policy B-3 on page 16 of the Guidelines further recommends varying setbacks on lots to retain the visual openness between neighboring residences. Intent: The purpose of the above Code and Design Guideline provisions is to retain a neighborhood's openness, partly by limiting height where structures are visible and by varying setbacks. The Town has attempted to preserve the open character of the La Paloma corridor by limiting heights and by requiring varied setbacks for new residences. The intent of this policy is to assure that future development occurs consistent with past practice and Code and Design Guideline provisions. Policy: 1. New development within the La Paloma corridor (map attached) shall be limited to a maximum height of 23 feet, measured from the existing grade or pad, whichever is lower. The Site Development Authority may allow the height to be measured from finished grade up to 2 feet above existing grade where fill is placed for the benefit of drainage and flood prevention purposes. 2. New development shall generally be limited to a single story, excluding basements and attics not counted as floor area. Exceptions may be allowed when a single story appearance is presented from La Paloma Road, Fremont Road, and immediate neighbors, so long as the 23 foot height limit is maintained. Any second floor area shall be encompassed within the roof of the structure,with only minimal dormers for light. 3. Setbacks for new development along La 1aloma Road shall vary from 40 to 80 feet. Draft: 7/8/98 LA ....---4.4. Ito 26300 26290 _ i i 2Se 14233 • 26110. 26078 26020 f 14200 26040 . x14211 14155 14160 Z6012\ ,. 2607 3- . — 140®5 • ... RR? 2601► 26201 14140 wr 26045 28290 jj ' 26023 5. 4'�. • 26074 . - . �. # 4 26007. 258 .% La Paloma Road Corridor 260 t . Boundary 1426000 26250 .? • • 14ioa. 26050 : � 0 � • • 26f89 . •• REMi 1, , • ROAD '.2 '126'36 • ' 2623A . • .26,20 < 26296 13981 • J • • - • 13970 26p70 2605215 . ,63 .. - i . 139• 26170 • 26012 203 26240 Q 26288 • . 4 1 12e00 • . IP• 13940 26'42 < 94 A o AlCToct < • 26169 . 13930• 12795i 26201 26101 . 13920 258` r80• rc�13 14.1-4U-ER 'LANE . `p' • 3 r 13870 •L ' p i 11111121.1 13900 V 12755 • < ;o a - 12734. 13 88 • c • v 13820 , .12735 13801 • 12695 `, < ' 135 . • J (3800 13810 13855 \ • 12693 y'' o4. 12692 \• O \E � \ 26117 26089• 26011 26063 ' 26035 1282 ' 2600_ TODD LANE 12690 • 26096 26062 • 12667 12670 13721 26018 259 12680 • .12663 13709 660260 65 . (2660 13685 , 26055 26545 • 12650 -.• .. C) ;� : 12635 . G ` 4. 12650 26075 .Ln :: I � 26005 26 0 —4 • COftl 12840 13673 2698' 12630 13661 \ - 1 I N • ATTACHMENT 3 DRAFT • ORDINANCE REGARDING GARAGE PARKING Garage Parking: Revise Section 10-1.601 (Off-Street Parking) of Chapter 10-1 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code to read as follows: • -"Each dwelling shall provide surfaced off-stieet parking facilities for a minimum of four (4) cars including garage or carport space. Each second dwelling shall provide surfaced off-street parking for a minimum of one (1) car in addition to the four (4) required for the primary dwelling. A minimum of three (3) of the required spaces must be enclosed in a garage. Each parking space shall be at least ten (10') feet wide and at least twenty (20') feet long. Unobstructed vehicular access shall be available at all times." 7/8/98 Draft J ATTACHMENT 4 LOS ALTOS HILLS Development Standards Comparison with Other Cities and Santa Clara County The following tables compare selected development standards of the Town of Los Altos Hills to criteria in similar zoning districts in Peninsula cities and in unincorpo ated Santa Clara.County. In particular, districts chosen for comparison were those typically involving hillside land features and/or requiring one acre minimum lot sizes, although there were a couple of exceptions. Most of the cities surveyed require discretionary review for new residences, either by an architectural board or by that community's Planning Commission. The following is a brief discussion of the characteristics of each community included in the comparison,as well as its discretionary review process: Atherton: Entirely residential community with minimum 1 acre lot sizes (one primary zoning district); no significant hillside or geologic constraints; there is no discretionary review of new residences. Hillsborough: Entirely residential community with minimum half-acre lot sizes (one zoning district); discretionary review of new residences by Architectural and Design Review Board. Los Gatos: Residential and commercial zoning districts, with varying lot sizes; hillside zoning district was used for comparison, generally with 1-5 acre lot sizes;discretionary review of new residences by Planning Commission. Palo Alto: Multiple uses in community,with varying lot sizes; residential estate(RE)zoning district was used for comparison, with one acre minimum lot size; discretionary review by Architectural Review Board. Portola Valley: Primarily residential community, with some commercial, and varying lot sizes; 1-acre combining district standards were used for comparison; discretionary review of new residences by Architectural and Site Control Commission. • Saratoga: Residential and commercial zoning districts, with varying lot sizes; 40,000 sf district and hillside zoning district were used for comparison, generally with 1 acre and 2 acre minimum lot sizes, respectively; review of new residences by staff, discretionary review by Planning Commission if over 6,000 square feet in size. Woodside: Primarily residential community,with some commercial, and varying lot sizes; 1 acre district was used for comparison; discretionary review of new residences by Architectural and Site Review Board. Santa Clara County: Unincorporated residential area; hillside zoning district was used for comparison, generally with 1 acre minimum lot size; discretionary review of new residences only in the"west hillside"areas(Cupertino,Los Gatos,Monte Serreno,and Saratoga unincorporated). Los Altos Hills: Entirely residential community; single zoning district with 1 acre minimum lot size; discretionary review of new residences by the Planning Commission. • LOS ALTOS HILLS Development Standards Comparison with Other Cities and Santa Clara County City/Countyl Floor Area Development Area Maximum House Size Accessory Structure or FAR or Coverage Limits Size/Height Limits Atherton Lot size x 0.163+723 sf; None None; limited by floor area only No size limit; counts in floor area; min.2,250 sf; 11'max.wall height; can be within 1 acre lot=7,823 sf 10 ft.of property line. Hillsborough 25%of lot size; 50%of lot(footprint plus None; >8,000 sf requires Council 1,000 sf; no special height limit 1 acre lot=10,890 sf • hardscape); 40%w/i front setback approval 1 acre lot=21,780 sf Los Gatos None for lots>30,000 sf None for hillside zones None 15 feet max.height no max.size Palo Alto 30%of lot size; 25%of lot size; 6,000 square feet None,except for second units 1 acre lot= 13,068 sf 1 acre lot=10,890 sf Portola Formula based on slope,hazards; Formula based on slope,hazards; 85%of floor area; Arch.Comm. None,except for second units; Valley adjusted for zone district; 5%bonus hardscape only; may increase with findings; requires Arch.Comm.review ' for<18 ft.height; 1 flat acre=7,808 sf includes_detached garage or carport; 1 flat acre=5,260 sf 1 flat acre=4,471 sf Saratoga Based on lot size; 35%of lot size; 25%in hillside 7,200 sf; 8,000 sf in hillside 15 feet max.height; no max.size 1 acre lot=6,060 sf district(2 ac.min.) district; includes attached garage 1 acre lot= 15,246 sf Woodside 18%of lot area; 15,000 sf; hardscape only; 40%+ 4,000 sf; 5,000 sf if 1.5+acres and 1500 sf max.,except for second 1 acre lot=7,841 sf to remain natural>12.5%slope; PC approves exception; excludes units; 17 ft.height limit w/11'plate 1 acre lot= 15,000 sf attached garage up to 11%of house height barns excepted max.(i.e.,440 sf) Santa,Clara County None None None 12 feet avg.height 35%max.rear yard coverage Los Altos Hills Formula based on slope; 1 flat acre Formula based on slope; includes None; limited by floor area only None,except for second units =6,000 sf all floor area; 1 flat acre=15,000 sf lAs applicable in"hillside"districts and/or districts with one acre minimum lot sizes,or closest comparable zoning district. Development Standards Page 2 LOS ALTOS HILLS Development Standards Comparison with Other Cities/County City/Countyl Maximum Height Single Story Height Basement Defined/ Garage Required/ Counted as FA? Counted as FA? Atherton 30 ft.with max.22 ft.for exterior Not applicable Not counted if exposed walls<2 ft. Not required(no parking required); walls; increase to 34'/28' with PC above grade garage counts as floor area approval Hillsborough_ 32 ft.; 22 ft.at setback line,then Not applicable Counted if>7.5 ft.ceiling height 2 enclosed spaces required; carport at 45 degree angle ("habitable"per UBC) not counted as floor area Los Gatos"'' 30 ft.above grade; 25 ft.max.if Not applicable Not counted if more of area below i Not required; carport not counted as highly visible;3 stories prohibited grade than above grade floor area Palo Alto - " 30 ft. 17 ft.for second units Not counted if exposed no more 2 spaces required; at least one must than 3 feet above grade be enclosed; carports count as FA Tortola 28 ft.; 34 ft.lowest to highest Not applicable; 5%FA bonus if Not counted if exposed walls<18" 2 covered spaces(garage or carport) Valley <18 ft.height above grade; can be partially required; garage or carport count counted; min.UBC exits,but as floor area exceptions by Arch.Comm. • Saratoga 26 ft. Not applicable; if ridgeline,8 ft. Not counted if exposed no more 2 covered spaces required; carport max.above ridge elevation than 2 feet above grade; light wells counts as floor area if 3 walls and UBC min. roof Woodside 30 ft. 17 ft.w/11' plate height for Not counted if exposed no more Not required; garage counts as floor accessory buildings than 2 feet above grade and not area; carport at 75%. habitable,and no exposed walls; 50%counted if habitable or one exposed wall Santa Clara County 35 ft.; 30 ft. (west hillsides); 3 Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable stories allowed Los Altos Hills 27 ft.; 35 ft.lowest to highest None; single story may be req'd. Not counted if ceiling of basement Not required; carport not counted as for ridgelines below grade,min.UBC exits/light. floor area lAs applicable in"hillside"districts and/or districts with one acre minimum lot sizes,or closest comparable zoning district. 1 Development Standards t I Page 3 LOS ALTOS HILLS Development Standards Comparison with Other Cities/County City/Countyl Setbacks Second Unit Size and Story Poles or Color Requirements Other Limits Other Visual Aids . `Atherton 60 ft.front and rear; side varies 600 sq.ft.max.; meet setback None; no discretionary review None ' by width of lot(30 ft.for 100' reqmts.; height limit 11'walls , width) Hillsborough`- 25 ft.front(street); 20 ft.rear; 20 only attached domestic quarters; Story poles required None; reviewed by Arch.Board - ft.side internal access :Los Gatos' ' 30 ft.front; 25 ft.rear; 20 ft.side Not permitted in hillside zones Story poles required 30%light reflectivity value in ' hillside zones; to blend with site Palo Alto 30 ft.front and rear: 15 feet side 900 sq.ft.max plus 200 sq.ft.for Uncertain Uncertain covered parking; one-story/17 ft. Portola 50 ft.front; 20 ft.rear; 20 ft.side 750 sq.ft.max.; no special height Arch.Comm.can require story Earth tones; color approved by Valley limit poles,models,etc. Arch.Comm. Saratoga 30 ft.front; 50 ft.rear,20 ft.side; 800 sq.ft.max.; 15 ft height; not Story poles required Earth tones; color approved by . _- -, _---- ---. -new-lots-based on%-of lot depth---allowed-on slopes>10% — - ---- _ Planning Commission and width: 20%,25%; 10% Woodside'°: 50 ft.front; 25 ft.rear; 20 ft.side; 1500 sf max. if not rented; 720 sf Story poles required Earth tones; color approved by 30 ft on rear and sides if height max. if rented; 17 ft.height max. Arch.Board Santa Clara.County 30 ft.on all sides Allowable size depends on lot size Can be required if highly visible 60%light reflectivity value(west hillsides only) Los Altos Hills 40 ft.front; 30 ft.rear; 30 ft. 1000 sf max.; no height limit Story poles required 50%light reflectivity value; 40% sides for roofs lAs applicable in"hillside"districts and/or districts with one acre minimum lot sizes,or closest comparable zoning district. 7/1/98